The Hazards of Belief

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

As it says there,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNd2bvLvyk4

how is that related to his FB and IG bans?

recedite

"As it says there" while quoting the article. I can't make this any simpler for you.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

"As it says there" while quoting the article. I can't make this any simpler for you.

your quote is about mainstream media. FB and IG are not mainstream media.

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

your quote is about mainstream media. FB and IG are not mainstream media.

Take it up with The Guardian, or with smacl who posted the link to the article.

recedite

Crusader beheaded.
800 years after getting home safely.

robindch

smacl wrote: »

I see that Tommy Robinson has picked himself up a permanent ban from Facebaook and Instagram for breaching its policies on hate speech. Good riddance!

Anybody catch Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon making any comments regarding the conviction of that foreign, religious fundamentalist pedophile George Pell?

I don't remember seeing him addressing the topic, nor the dreadful censorship surrounding the conviction amongst the mainstream media.

I'm sure it's just a matter of time before Mr Yaxley-Lennon notices this cover-up and turns his attention to the matter.

Do keep an eye out folks.

Pawwed Rig

I don't think I am comfortable with private companies deciding what viewpoints I can and cannot hear.
Did he actually call for violence?

ohnonotgmail

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't think I am comfortable with private companies deciding what viewpoints I can and cannot hear.
Did he actually call for violence?

Yes per the BBC



https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47371290

smacl

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't think I am comfortable with private companies deciding what viewpoints I can and cannot hear.
Did he actually call for violence?

Meh, I've no problem with private companies refusing to provide their services to promote a point of view where that point of view promotes hatred of other people. I actually applaud social media providers having a policy that bans hate speech. Worth remembering that hate speech is a criminal offence in the EU and while I'm all for freedom of expression, it doesn't extend to using that freedom to make other people's lives a misery. Could also be that these companies are actually legally obliged to censor in this instance.

Pawwed Rig

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Yes per the BBC



https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47371290

Now did he say that muslims are filthy scumbags or did he describe a group of people who happen to be muslims as filthy scumbags. Context is key in these scenarios. Better to see what he said and make up our own minds.

ohnonotgmail

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Now did he say that muslims are filthy scumbags or did he describe a group of people who happen to be muslims as filthy scumbags. Context is key in these scenarios. Better to see what he said and make up our own minds.

and what excuse can you come up with for these two:

a post urging people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Koran
a post urging people to "make war" on Muslims

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Yes per the BBC

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47371290

Would this be the same BBC that tried to do another hatchet job on TR, as per the Panodrama exposé a few posts back? Thinking him to be an uneducated working class bloke, on the level of "a cannibal".
Except TR was too smart for them.


Even your link above is full of untruths.
For example...

In May, Mr Robinson, 35, was jailed for contempt of court. The 13-month sentence sparked a series of #freetommy protests. The conviction was later quashed after procedural concerns.The case has now been referred to the attorney general.

Procedural concerns my ass. His conviction was quashed on appeal because it was completely unlawful in the first place. The above quote would lead you to believe he is guilty of something, and is due to be put away any day now.

According to Facebook, a written warning had been sent to Mr Robinson last month about a number of posts on his page that had violated its community standards, including:

a post calling Muslims "filthy scum bags"

• a post urging people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Koran
• a post urging people to "make war" on Muslims
• multiple videos depicting individuals being bullied

I don't believe any of that. We all know what kind of people call for holy war, jihad and beheadings. And its certainly not a white guy from London.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

Would t(...............)


I don't believe any of that. We all know what kind of people call for holy war, jihad and beheadings. And its certainly not a white guy from London.

Tommy Robinson isn't a white guy?

Odhinn

Every single Muslim watching this... on 7/7 you got away with killing and maiming British citizens... you had better understand that we have built a network from one end of the country to the other end... and the Islamic community will feel the full force of the English Defence League if we see any of our British citizens killed, maimed, or hurt on British soil ever again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j7IX_5a_9M&feature=youtu.be


Yep...misunderstood.

Pawwed Rig

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and what excuse can you come up with for these two:

I haven't come up with any excuses. I just want go be able to hear what is said in context rather than selected quotes from sources with agendas.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Would this be the same BBC that tried to do another hatchet job on TR, as per the Panodrama exposé a few posts back? Thinking him to be an uneducated working class bloke, on the level of "a cannibal".
Except TR was too smart for them.


Even your link above is full of untruths.
For example...Procedural concerns my ass. His conviction was quashed on appeal because it was completely unlawful in the first place. The above quote would lead you to believe he is guilty of something, and is due to be put away any day now.


I don't believe any of that. We all know what kind of people call for holy war, jihad and beheadings. And its certainly not a white guy from London.

The judge who heard the appeal disagrees with you. I'll take his opinion over yours.

ohnonotgmail

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I haven't come up with any excuses. I just want go be able to hear what is said in context rather than selected quotes from sources with agendas.

Please educate me as to what context makes these acceptable

a post urging people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Koran


a post urging people to "make war" on Muslims

robindch

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't think I am comfortable with private companies deciding what viewpoints I can and cannot hear.

Happens all the time - here on boards too. A private company can make whatever rules it likes about how it's own privately-owned platform can be used. Same as you or I can make whatever rules we like concerning whatever rules might apply to our own dinner-tables or our own houses.

It's different at the level of platforms which are state-owned - they are broadly required, by the state's own free-speech laws, to allow everybody freedom to speak regardless of political tinge, once the basic rules regarding "falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" are adhered to. Though I note that Mr Yaxley-Lennon hasn't bothered to meet even this basic criterion for decency.

Haven't wasted any time checking this either, but I'd imagine that Mr Yaxley-Lennon or his supporters, have specifically chosen to ignore the important distinction between spaces which are privately-owned spaces and those which are publicly-owned.

Pawwed Rig

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Please educate me as to what context makes these acceptable

So why not print what was said rather than their summary? As I said context is key.

smacl

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I haven't come up with any excuses. I just want go be able to hear what is said in context rather than selected quotes from sources with agendas.

That's fair enough but the likes of Facebook don't have any obligation in helping you with that exploration where the same information is no doubt available from the EDL home page. If they consider someone to be hate mongering it is quite reasonable they ban him. Worth remembering that Facebook strives to limit it's content to what is broadly acceptable to all audiences, given it's business is centred around having the largest possible audience. It is not a public service.

oscarBravo

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't think I am comfortable with private companies deciding what viewpoints I can and cannot hear.

That's a nice, reasonable perspective on the face of it. But think about what its implications are.

Let's suppose for argument's sake that there's a person who thinks that all Sikhs should be murdered. Let's further suppose that that person wants to air that view on boards.ie.

Your argument is that boards.ie shouldn't have the right to prevent this website being used as a platform for people who express the view that all Sikhs should be murdered; that it's a dangerous obstruction to free speech and a slippery slope to clamp down on the "viewpoint" that every Sikh must die.

You would argue that it's impossible to judge the validity or otherwise of this call to mass murder without the proper context, and that a private company has no right to prevent its users from being persuaded of the merits of genocide.

Is that a caricature of your point of view? If it is, it's a mild one. If Facebook wants to prevent a vile scumbag like Yaxley-Lennon from spreading his message of hatred, that's fine with me. It's about time they took some responsibility for the crap that's peddled on their platform.

robindch

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's about time they took some responsibility for the crap that's peddled on their platform.

While I can't disagree with that, taking any responsibility at all opens up all kinds of hard-to-deal-with legal issues.

Historically, telecom companies have avoided responsibility for whatever passes over their networks by reasonably claiming that nothing is monitored and they have no control over the speech which is transmitted. To the best of my knowledge, Facebook, Twitter and the rest rely on a similar defence - and only allowing a minimal level of responsibility to accrue where one network user's content is judged by some other network user to be non-compliant with carrier rules.

Rather than requiring the platforms to assume some responsibility, an easier sell is the idea of user accounts banded according to likely authenticity - though again, the platforms have little interest in that, at least without significant pushing by, for example the EU - wishing instead to inflate their numbers in order to sell more ad interactions.

Pawwed Rig

Facebook might be too big to be given as much leeway as a site like boards. Their power is huge and 'with great power comes great responsibility'.
They are very left leaning as a corporation. Due to their power I think they need outside moderation rather than being allowed decide themselves what is good and what is not. If it is within the law then it should be heard.
The world has moved on from state media.

smacl

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Facebook might be too big to be given as much leeway as a site like boards. Their power is huge and 'with great power comes great responsibility'.
They are very left leaning as a corporation. Due to their power I think they need outside moderation rather than being allowed decide themselves what is good and what is not. If it is within the law then it should be heard.
The world has moved on from state media.

Moderated by who exactly? On the one hand you're concerned that Tommy Robinson has been censored and on the other your calling for greater moderation of privately held media. Public incitement to hatred is neither socially acceptable nor legal in the EU, so I'd suggest that Facebook are merely operating with in societal norms here. As for Facebook being very left leaning, that rather depends on your notion of where the centre lies. I'd be interested in knowing how you would (or could) objectively support this statement.

oscarBravo

robindch wrote: »

Historically, telecom companies have avoided responsibility for whatever passes over their networks by reasonably claiming that nothing is monitored and they have no control over the speech which is transmitted. To the best of my knowledge, Facebook, Twitter and the rest rely on a similar defence - and only allowing a minimal level of responsibility to accrue where one network user's content is judged by some other network user to be non-compliant with carrier rules.

Platforms like Facebook and Twitter would dearly love to be able to lean on the "mere conduit" defence, but it relies on an extremely cynical refusal to distinguish between "access" and "hosting".

Back to my hypothetical Sikh-hater: he connects to boards.ie using an ISP who provides him with a broadband connection. If he posts his genocidal manifesto, the packets that contain that message will transit across the ISP's network in a matter of a few milliseconds. Most ISPs won't look any deeper into those packets than the IP header, which give just enough information to determine the route they should take. Even assuming they could be bothered looking deeper (and why on earth would they waste resources doing that?) the payload is encrypted and unreadable.

Boards.ie, on the other hand, is then hosting that message. It stores that message in its database, and presents a clear-text copy of it to anyone who looks for it.

One of those businesses is a mere conduit. The other is not. There is no comparison.

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The judge who heard the appeal disagrees with you. I'll take his opinion over yours.

Nope. Try reading the actual judgement before you go posting false statements.



There's a lot of incitement to hatred going on in this very thread.
Hatred towards Tommy Robinson.

Zubeneschamali

recedite wrote: »

There's a lot of incitement to hatred going on in this very thread. Hatred towards Tommy Robinson.

Yaxley-Lennon incites hatred of Yaxley-Lennon every time he speaks.

smacl

oscarBravo wrote: »

Platforms like Facebook and Twitter would dearly love to be able to lean on the "mere conduit" defence, but it relies on an extremely cynical refusal to distinguish between "access" and "hosting".

Agree entirely with this, most other forms of media can and do get prosecuted or sued for publishing material that is illegal or defamatory. Had something similar with adverts.ie some time back where I brought an add to their attention which was demonstrably for stolen goods. I got a boilerplate response back saying this was something that I should take up with the police (i.e. not their responsibility). Same happens regularly on the likes of ebay. The "mere conduit" defense is flawed on the basis that sites that host illegal material make money by doing so and are thus liable through profiting from criminal activity.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Agree entirely with this, most other forms of media can and do get prosecuted or sued for publishing material that is illegal or defamatory. Had something similar with adverts.ie some time back where I brought an add to their attention which was demonstrably for stolen goods. I got a boilerplate response back saying this was something that I should take up with the police (i.e. not their responsibility). Same happens regularly on the likes of ebay. The "mere conduit" defense is flawed on the basis that sites that host illegal material make money by doing so and are thus liable through profiting from criminal activity.

So you're comparing an add for stolen goods with Facebook censoring all future utterances of a person they don't like. And you're saying they are the same thing.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

So you're comparing an add for stolen goods with Facebook censoring all future utterances of a person they don't like. And you're saying they are the same thing.

I'm saying that companies that make money on the back of publishing illegal or defamatory content should be liable to prosecution for doing so, which is the case for most mainstream media. This is as true of fencing stolen goods and incitement to hatred.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I'm saying that companies that make money on the back of publishing illegal or defamatory content should be liable to prosecution for doing so, which is the case for most mainstream media. This is as true of fencing stolen goods and incitement to hatred.

Yup. It's all a matter of getting the incentives right. If you set things up so that people can make money by diseminating injurious material, but not bear the economic costs associated with the injuries inflicted, you're giving them a finanaicl incentive to diseminate injurious material and, naturally, they will respoins to that incentive. The trick is to ensure that those who benefit from the upside of publishing information also bear any downside, so they have an incentive to balance the two considerations.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yup. It's all a matter of getting the incentives right. If you set things up so that people can make money by diseminating injurious material, but not bear the economic costs associated with the injuries inflicted, you're giving them a finanaicl incentive to diseminate injurious material and, naturally, they will respoins to that incentive. The trick is to ensure that those who benefit from the upside of publishing information also bear any downside, so they have an incentive to balance the two considerations.

There is a difference between allowing Free Speech, and selling stolen goods.


Even if Facebook believed that TR's beliefs and speech were injurious to the public good (which is obviously disputed by the huge crowds who gathered outside the Old Bailey after he was unlawfully locked up) then they could respond by disabling the "donate button" on his facebook page. Which they did last year, after a campaign by The Guardian newspaper calling on them to disable it.


What we are seeing now is an assault on free speech itself by a private company. Which on the face of it is fine, except that we find now that a few global companies are increasingly controlling the public discourse. And possibly deliberately influencing elections and public policy, mainly for profit.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

There is a difference between allowing Free Speech, and selling stolen goods.


Even if Facebook believed that TR's beliefs and speech were injurious to the public good (which is obviously disputed by the huge crowds who gathered outside the Old Bailey after he was unlawfully locked up) then they could respond by disabling the "donate button" on his facebook page. Which they did last year, after a campaign by The Guardian newspaper calling on them to disable it.


What we are seeing now is an assault on free speech itself by a private company. Which on the face of it is fine, except that we find now that a few global companies are increasingly controlling the public discourse. And possibly deliberately influencing elections and public policy, mainly for profit.

Inciting violence is not covered under free speech in the UK.

robindch

oscarBravo wrote: »

Platforms like Facebook and Twitter would dearly love to be able to lean on the "mere conduit" defence, but it relies on an extremely cynical refusal to distinguish between "access" and "hosting".

Can't see any of the main social media platforms running short of cynicism any time soon.

If a platform is storing data, or storing a link to data, and particularly when access to that data is monetized, then I'd have thought that the platform has a basic responsibility to ensure that what it's storing conforms to basic societal norms.

Content encryption complicates that basis though - is WhatsApp really responsible for fake-news storms or illegal content when that content is visible only to the sender and recipient, and when it's stored only on the phone? What about stuff that's visible only to the end-user, but securely stored in the cloud (like iPhone piccies stored in iCloud)?

And has anybody developed a social network where content is stored on the platform's hardware, but visible only to end-users? That'll come (if it's not here already) if and when states start making the platforms responsible in some fashion for the content they serve.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

There is a difference between allowing Free Speech, and selling stolen goods.

There is also a difference between free speech and incitement to hatred.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

There is also a difference between free speech and incitement to hatred.

Of those three (free speech, selling stolen goods, and incitement to hatred) only two of them are offences.


If TR was guilty of either, surely the law would deal with him?
The British authorities have already proved themselves very keen to lock him up when he was innocent, so I'm sure they would be quick to nab him if he was guilty.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Of those three (free speech, selling stolen goods, and incitement to hatred) only two of them are offences.


If TR was guilty of either, surely the law would deal with him?
The British authorities have already proved themselves very keen to lock him up when he was innocent, so I'm sure they would be quick to nab him if he was guilty.

One would hope that the law will deal with appropriately. In the meantime FB are free to make their own judgement on what he posted and do not have to meet the same level of proof as a court of law.

Odhinn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Inciting violence is not covered under free speech in the UK.

Or the US, for that matter.

Pawwed Rig

smacl wrote: »

There is also a difference between free speech and incitement to hatred.

Exactly then get rid of the incitement to hatred and leave the freedom of speech.
Facebook has admitted to be left wing under qurestioning from the senate commitee in the US and has also admitted to moderating right leaning commentators far more than left. At the moment it is moderated by facebook under their ethos. With the power they have this seems unfair (given that they are already being accused of skewing elections in the US). I would say a company of that size should have legal people in each jurisdiction in which they operate draw up rules for local mods to enforce based on local laws.

Odhinn

Something that seems to have been missed in the concentration on the hate speech


"The company said Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, broke rules that ban public calls for violence against people based on protected characteristics; rules that ban supporting or appearing with organised hate groups; and policies that prevent people from using the site to bully others."


"The ban comes a month after Facebook issued a final written warning against Robinson, warning him that he would be removed from its platform permanently if he continued to break the company’s hate speech policies.
That warning had been issued for breaches that included a post calling on people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Qur’an; a post calling on people to “make war” on Muslims; and multiple videos showing people being bullied.
Following that warning, Robinson did break Facebook’s policies again, it says, through:

• Organising and participating in events with recognised hate figures or groups, such as Proud Boys and Gavin McInnes
• Public praise or support for these hate figures and groups

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/26/tommy-robinson-banned-from-facebook-and-instagram

ohnonotgmail

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Exactly then get rid of the incitement to hatred and leave the freedom of speech.
Facebook has admitted to be left wing under qurestioning from the senate commitee in the US and has also admitted to moderating right leaning commentators far more than left. At the moment it is moderated by facebook under their ethos. With the power they have this seems unfair (given that they are already being accused of skewing elections in the US). I would say a company of that size should have legal people in each jurisdiction in which they operate draw up rules for local mods to enforce based on local laws.

Do you expect FB to only delete the offending posts? How long do you think they should do this? I find this a strange attitude from a mod here

recedite

Odhinn wrote: »

Something that seems to have been missed in the concentration on the hate speech


"The company said Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, broke rules that ban public calls for violence against people based on protected characteristics; rules that ban supporting or appearing with organised hate groups; and policies that prevent people from using the site to bully others."


"The ban comes a month after Facebook issued a final written warning against Robinson, warning him that he would be removed from its platform permanently if he continued to break the company’s hate speech policies.
That warning had been issued for breaches that included a post calling on people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Qur’an; a post calling on people to “make war” on Muslims; and multiple videos showing people being bullied.
Following that warning, Robinson did break Facebook’s policies again, it says, through:

• Organising and participating in events with recognised hate figures or groups, such as Proud Boys and Gavin McInnes
• Public praise or support for these hate figures and groups

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/26/tommy-robinson-banned-from-facebook-and-instagram

All of that alleged by The Guardian and Facebook, and as I said these had already conspired to block all donations to TR via Facebook.


Your Proud Boys link is another attempted hatchet job by The Guardian.
In the end though, it just makes the newspaper look petty.

McInnes denies that his group is racist, and he and other Proud Boys point to the presence of non-white members...

Putting that quote into the article is similar to the old trick of asking "So, when did you stop beating your wife?".


Continuing to taunt his interviewee, the reporter finally gets what he considers to be an aggressive response, which is what he wanted to get all along...

The Guardian reached McInnes by phone. Asked about the violence in Portland, he said: “You would have to be completely blind, which I think you are, to not see that fight for what it is, which is antifa, fully armed, attacking Joey Gibson and Joey Gibson’s friends.”
Asked if sharing video of Nordean’s punch amounted to the promotion of violence, McInnes called the Guardian a “****ing weak human being”, a “vile little pussy” and a “tepid ****”. He then ranted about “the media class”, who he said “sit there picking fights, call everyone a Nazi, and then when someone dares defend themselves, and someone else says ‘Yay’, you say: ‘Well you’re promoting violence.’”

Lots of people will consider that to be a very good response, though maybe not the average Guardian reader

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

All of that alleged (............)reader

It's a bit more than the Guardian
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/proud-boys


"The FBI now classifies the far-right Proud Boys as an “extremist group with ties to white nationalism”, according to a document produced by Washington state law enforcement."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/19/proud-boys-fbi-classification-extremist-group-white-nationalism-report

Pawwed Rig

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I find this a strange attitude from a mod here

I am not a mod here. I am a person, like you, with their own opinions and thought processes.

ohnonotgmail

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I am not a mod here. I am a person, like you, with their own opinions and thought processes.

Here as in boards.ie. Surely you realise that you cannot just constantly clean up after users who break the rules and eventually you must ban them?

smacl

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Facebook has admitted to be left wing under qurestioning from the senate commitee in the US and has also admitted to moderating right leaning commentators far more than left. At the moment it is moderated by facebook under their ethos.

Do you have a reference for that? Closest I could find was Zuckerbergs statement under questioning from Ted Cruz, which actually amounts more to a denial rather than an admission.

Zuckerberg wrote:

“First I understand where that concern is coming from because Facebook and the tech industry is located in silicon valley which is an extremely left-leaning place.

“This is actually a concern that I have and that I try to route out in the company by making sure we don’t have any bias in the work that we do.

“I think it is a fair concern for people to wonder about.”

The full transcript is here

SaifUllah

Odhinn wrote: »

Something that seems to have been missed in the concentration on the hate speech


"The company said Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, broke rules that ban public calls for violence against people based on protected characteristics; rules that ban supporting or appearing with organised hate groups; and policies that prevent people from using the site to bully others."


"The ban comes a month after issued a final written warning against Robinson, warning him that he would be removed from its platform permanently if he continued to break the company’s hate speech policies.
That warning had been issued for breaches that included a post calling on people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Qur’an; a post calling on people to “make war” on Muslims; and multiple videos showing people being bullied.
Following that warning, Robinson did break Facebook’s policies again, it says, through:

• Organising and participating in events with recognised hate figures or groups, such as and Gavin McInnes
• Public praise or support for these hate figures and groups

Tommy Robinson is a thug, he is a just spreading hate and division.

recedite

SaifUllah wrote: »

Tommy Robinson is a thug..

SaifUllah... doesn't that translate as the Sword of Allah?
Great name for a headhacker. Not so great for a pacifist.

Hotblack Desiato

I took it to be South Ulster.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... the gain on yer islamoterrists under the bed radar might be turned up a little high?

Odhinn

Eejit.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/the-irish-isil-bride-how-former-member-of-defence-forces-was-captured-in-syria-on-suspicion-of-supporting-isil-37894888.html